Evidence Hub

A systematic review of the applications of Mendelian randomization assessing the causal relevance of the gut microbiome in human health and disease

C. Hatcher, A. Mckinlay, A. Bailward, A. Dawes, David Allen Hughes, D. Pournaras, L. J. Corbin, L. Goudswaard et al.

medRxiv, 2025

2 citations

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the current application of Mendelian randomization (MR) in assessing the causal relevance of the gut microbiome in human health and evaluate the quality of these studies. Design: Systematic review Data sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, bioRxiv and medRxiv were searched from inception to the 12th of January 2023. Eligibility criteria: Full-texts and conference abstracts of studies that conducted MR analyses to investigate the causal role of the gut microbiome on any outcome. Methods and analysis: Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, assessed full texts for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality. Extracted data included information on authors, hypothesis/rationale, methodology used (including genetic instrumentation decisions and analyses), results and limitations. As no quality assessment tool currently exists for MR studies, the quality of each study was assessed using a series of questions adapted from two previous systematic reviews of MR studies and a comparison with the STROBE-MR guidelines. Results were narratively synthesized, and meta-analyses were conducted, where possible, if the exposure and outcome were comparable (including definition and units) and data sources were appropriately independent across studies. Results: Of the 463 records identified, 66 were eligible for inclusion. We identified 48,082 individual MR estimates of the relationship between 612 gut microbial traits (defined by…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free